Did Roswell Park
Steve Thomas
had been dismissed from the summer program? Id like to see some
evidence if they did.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
> Did Roswell Park ever retract the information sent out saying Judyth
>had been dismissed from the summer program? Id like to see some
>evidence if they did.
Roswell Park has not retracted the information given to me.
No evidence of them having retracted it to anyone has been posted and
Judyth posted a statement acknowledging Dr. Mirand told a coup[le
researchers that she had been dismissed ..... for a "housing
violoation."
No researcher has stepped forward, though I have asked several times,
to confirm that Dr. Mirand told them Judyth was dismissed for a
"housing violation."
Judyth, of course, went on to explain that she had finished the
program in grand style anyway.
IFFFFF Dr. Mirand had told ANY of them that Judyth had been dismissed
from the program for a "housing violation" but that she had completed
the program anyway, and in grand style .... that info would have been
posted so fast that the handset on the phone wouldn't have had time to
cool.
I've asked both Pamela and Martin just where the "housing violation"
thing came from. If it's not what either of them or Martin's
"California researcher" were told by Mirand ... then did that "housing
violation" story come from ... Judyth?
So, no ... the RP statement that Judyth did not complete the program
but was dismissed has NOT been retracted.
And no ... there has been no evidence posted of anything as regards
any info any of them got from Dr. Mirand.
Bests,
Barb :-)
jfk...@gmail.com
Martin was given information some time before that was consistent with
Judyth completing the program. That information is consistent with the
level of information one would expect from an institution such as RP.
None of that has been retracted.
Looks like Barb has been left to hang...again.
Steve Thomas
wrote:
> On 10 May 2008 14:15:04 -0400, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com>
I wonder why no one will post what they heard from Dr Mirand. I seem
to remember Pam was waiting for him to get back, but we never got a
follow up. Just who were these researchers Judyth was talking about?
Barb Junkkarinen
None of that was incorrect. Even Martin noted to you that the info he
got earlier was not inconsistent with what I was told, the info he got
just didn't go that far.
What that info did say is inconsistent with a claim of Judyth's that
she got $150/mo stipend. The info Martin was sent earlier noted she
had received $250 total.
I, so far, have two students who independently told me the stipend was
$200/mo.
That $250 RP told Martin Judyth got doesn't cover an 8 week program
either way.
>
>Looks like Barb has been left to hang...again.
I've not been left hanging on anything. RP has not retracted the
information that Judyth had notfinished the program and had been
dismissed. Period.
Of course all of us are left hanging waiting for you and Martin to
post all the details you promised that would show the info I was given
was in error, gossip, a "rumour."
How'd that work out for you, Pamela? Any reason you are not even able
to acknowledge that Judyth herself issued a statement saying a couple
researchers had been told by Dr. Mirand that she had been dismissed
from the program?
Martin at least has enough sense not to make it worse.<g> I'm not
hanging ... nor am I the one swinging in the breeze.
William Yates
And that information is also consistent with her being dismissed from RP.
By the way, what happened to your not believing witnesses are either
telling the truth or lying? You seem to be very comfortable dismissing the
information that has been presented, even though it comes from a witness
to Judyth at RP. Shouldn't that be enough for to want to hear they have to
say? Shouldn't you be trying to provide an open forum instead of trying to
close doors for this witness?
jfk...@gmail.com
wrote:
> jfk2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On May 10, 1:15 pm, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Did Roswell Park ever retract the information sent out saying Judyth
> >> had been dismissed from the summer program? Id like to see some
> >> evidence if they did.
>
> > Martin was given information some time before that was consistent with
> > Judyth completing the program. That information is consistent with the
> > level of information one would expect from an institution such as RP.
> > None of that has been retracted.
>
> > Looks like Barb has been left to hang...again.
>
> And that information is also consistent with her being dismissed from RP.
Untrue. A grant would not have been given to someone who had been
'dismissed'.
>
> By the way, what happened to your not believing witnesses are either
> telling the truth or lying? You seem to be very comfortable dismissing the
> information that has been presented, even though it comes from a witness
> to Judyth at RP.
I am not weighing the information from Barb's nameless witness heavily, as
you have pointed out. For one thing, it is specious and without any
details, and seems to come from heresay rather than from anything
concrete. It seems to me this person may be mistaken or putting forth
information that is incorrect or incomplete. I don't think they're
'lying'.
In addition, the information is being parsed by Barb whose bias against
Judyth is legend, so we know that no matter what this person may be
telling her, Barb will only use that which she thinks can be detrimental
to Judyth.
Shouldn't that be enough for to want to hear they have to
> say? Shouldn't you be trying to provide an open forum instead of trying to
> close doors for this witness?
Are you suggesting that Barb should provide me with contact information
for this person so that I may ask questions myself?
Barb Junkkarinen
>On May 10, 11:52 pm, William Yates <william_yates...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>> jfk2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On May 10, 1:15 pm, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> Did Roswell Park ever retract the information sent out saying Judyth
>> >> had been dismissed from the summer program? Id like to see some
>> >> evidence if they did.
>>
>> > Martin was given information some time before that was consistent with
>> > Judyth completing the program. That information is consistent with the
>> > level of information one would expect from an institution such as RP.
>> > None of that has been retracted.
>>
>> > Looks like Barb has been left to hang...again.
>>
>> And that information is also consistent with her being dismissed from RP.
>
>Untrue. A grant would not have been given to someone who had been
>'dismissed'.
Read what the information said ... she was paid from a grant. That was
her stipend. Nothing else. All the students got stipends. That was
exxentially their pay ... and allowed them to pay for their
accommodations and incidentals. That she was only paid $250 from this
grant, as the info Martin got states, is inconsistent with the amount
of stipend Judyth herself claims she was going to get: $150/mo. It is
also inconsistent with the $200/mo two students have independently
told me they got. It was an 8 week program. The math isn't that
difficult.
>
>>
>> By the way, what happened to your not believing witnesses are either
>> telling the truth or lying? You seem to be very comfortable dismissing the
>> information that has been presented, even though it comes from a witness
>> to Judyth at RP.
>
>I am not weighing the information from Barb's nameless witness heavily, as
>you have pointed out. For one thing, it is specious and without any
>details, and seems to come from heresay rather than from anything
>concrete. It seems to me this person may be mistaken or putting forth
>information that is incorrect or incomplete. I don't think they're
>'lying'.
The information came from Dean at Roswell Park. Neither he nor Mirand
have retracted the information.
If it was incorrect, particularly given all the calls and messages
made by you, Howard and some unknown California researcher of
Martins's ... in addition to me writing, asking if there was a problem
with the information and asking to be notified ASAP if there was a
problem .... if anything is "specious" it is your refusal to
acknowledge the dismissal happened ... cripes, not even Judyth denies
it and she states a couple of researchers were told by Mirand.
>
>In addition, the information is being parsed by Barb whose bias against
>Judyth is legend, so we know that no matter what this person may be
>telling her, Barb will only use that which she thinks can be detrimental
>to Judyth.
I posted the entire e-mail, Pamela. Martin has ALL of my exchanges
with this person.
>
> Shouldn't that be enough for to want to hear they have to
>> say? Shouldn't you be trying to provide an open forum instead of trying to
>> close doors for this witness?
Judyth made a statement in respopnse. She opened with acknowledging
that Dr. Mirand told a couple of researchers she had been dismissed.
>
>Are you suggesting that Barb should provide me with contact information
>for this person so that I may ask questions myself?
You already told us you left messages for Mirand and that you would be
speaking to him; Martin said the same of the California researcher and
sai we would soon have details.
If Judyth didn't get the information that Mirand said she had been
dismissed from any of you .... then just where DID she come up with
this "housing violation" she lays off on Mirand?
Why aren't you asking Judyth questions about that ... and about the
conflicts in her statements ... between statements and with them and
her book?
You've tried to make this look like it is about me. It is not. It is
about Judyth and her claims.
William Yates
> On May 10, 11:52 pm, William Yates <william_yates...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> jfk2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On May 10, 1:15 pm, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> Did Roswell Park ever retract the information sent out saying Judyth
>>>> had been dismissed from the summer program? Id like to see some
>>>> evidence if they did.
>>> Martin was given information some time before that was consistent with
>>> Judyth completing the program. That information is consistent with the
>>> level of information one would expect from an institution such as RP.
>>> None of that has been retracted.
>>> Looks like Barb has been left to hang...again.
>> And that information is also consistent with her being dismissed from RP.
>
> Untrue. A grant would not have been given to someone who had been
> 'dismissed'.
It didn't say she got a grant for finishing; it said she was paid from a
grant.
>
>> By the way, what happened to your not believing witnesses are either
>> telling the truth or lying? You seem to be very comfortable dismissing the
>> information that has been presented, even though it comes from a witness
>> to Judyth at RP.
>
> I am not weighing the information from Barb's nameless witness heavily, as
> you have pointed out. For one thing, it is specious and without any
> details, and seems to come from heresay rather than from anything
> concrete. It seems to me this person may be mistaken or putting forth
> information that is incorrect or incomplete. I don't think they're
> 'lying'.
>
> In addition, the information is being parsed by Barb whose bias against
> Judyth is legend, so we know that no matter what this person may be
> telling her, Barb will only use that which she thinks can be detrimental
> to Judyth.
>
> Shouldn't that be enough for to want to hear they have to
>> say? Shouldn't you be trying to provide an open forum instead of trying to
>> close doors for this witness?
>
> Are you suggesting that Barb should provide me with contact information
> for this person so that I may ask questions myself?
>
You could try to locate others who attended RP that year and see what
they have to say about it.
jfk...@gmail.com
wrote:
> jfk2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On May 10, 11:52 pm, William Yates <william_yates...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >> jfk2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On May 10, 1:15 pm, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>> Did Roswell Park ever retract the information sent out saying Judyth
> >>>> had been dismissed from the summer program? Id like to see some
> >>>> evidence if they did.
> >>> Martin was given information some time before that was consistent with
> >>> Judyth completing the program. That information is consistent with the
> >>> level of information one would expect from an institution such as RP.
> >>> None of that has been retracted.
> >>> Looks like Barb has been left to hang...again.
> >> And that information is also consistent with her being dismissed from RP.
>
> > Untrue. A grant would not have been given to someone who had been
> > 'dismissed'.
>
> It didn't say she got a grant for finishing; it said she was paid from a
> grant.
>
Grants were awarded at the end of the program. In addition, the paper
Judyth wrote at RP was presented three times.
Barb Junkkarinen
Documentation! Even Martin has noted that Judyth was paid from an RP
grant ***while at RP participating in the program***. Judyth has made
much of it herself, nver mentioning the $150/mo she said she got
without adding she was paid at the "collegiate level."
Program participants were paid from grants RP received to run/fund the
program.
> In addition, the paper
>Judyth wrote at RP was presented three times.
Documentation she wrote a paper while at RP woul be ????
Where is this paper?
William Yates
The e-mail Martin posted didn't say anything, one way or the other,
about her finishing the program.
>In addition, the paper
> Judyth wrote at RP was presented three times.
>
Or so Judyth says. But it was only two presentations before Barb found
the IAS info.
But you can, I presume, document the other two appearances? With
something other than what Judyth says?
howardp
>
> - Show quoted text -
For your edification, the following comes from a book draft written in
1999. Judyth gave me the info. I can't now separate her statement from my
edit. But this has always been my understanding. Uppercase letters are
mine.
"When preparing my first professional paper at a medical conference
sponsored by the Indiana Biological Association, Dr. Ochsner told me I
couldn’t use his name. I could mention Roswell Park, but none of my
other contacts. And I was forbidden to mention the fact that I was
working with a simian (monkey) virus. I was allowed to report on some
aspects of my investigation into melanoma, but I could only go so far.
Atop that, EVEN THOUGH I READ A “SANITIZED” PAPER AT THE CONFERENCE, I
STILL COULDN’T GET IT PUBLISHED IN THE GROUP’S JOURNAL. Dr. Ochsner
and Dr. Moore told me not once, but twice: if my work were to end up in
the wrong hands, it could be used to create a biological weapon."
Little did Judyth realize at the time...
Howard
Barb Junkkarinen
I think there's a lor she hasn't realized.<g>
So now you show Judyth saying the "paper" presented at the
non-existent IBA was prepared AFTER RP ... that it is different from
the paper she claims she gave AT RP.
And she (or you) seem to be saying she shammed the group she presented
the paper to.
Elsewhere she has said they wouldn'rt publish her paper because she
was only 18 and they were embarrassed.
Did the nun listed as co-presenter know she had signed on to be part
of a sham presentation?
And do you know, for a fact, that there was a complete paper ... and
not just the abstract?
Well, you probably can't answer that one ... becuase all your info
came solely from Judyth, right?
You know how silly that is, right?
Barb :-)
>
>Howard
William Yates
Um...didn't I say something about "other than what Judyth says?"
JLeyd...@aol.com
> For your edification, the following comes from a book draft written in
> 1999. Judyth gave me the info. I can't now separate her statement from my
> edit. But this has always been my understanding. Uppercase letters are
> mine.
>
> "When preparing my first professional paper at a medical conference
> sponsored by the Indiana Biological Association, Dr. Ochsner told me I
> couldn’t use his name. I could mention Roswell Park, but none of my
> other contacts. And I was forbidden to mention the fact that I was
> working with a simian (monkey) virus. I was allowed to report on some
> aspects of my investigation into melanoma, but I could only go so far.
> Atop that, EVEN THOUGH I READ A “SANITIZED” PAPER AT THE CONFERENCE, I
> STILL COULDN’T GET IT PUBLISHED IN THE GROUP’S JOURNAL. Dr. Ochsner
> and Dr. Moore told me not once, but twice: if my work were to end up in
> the wrong hands, it could be used to create a biological weapon."
>
> Little did Judyth realize at the time...
Good Lord, Howard, you and your ex-buddy, Shackelford, actually
believed this nonsense. Absolutely Amazing. No wonder the Judyth
project crashed and burned (with no survivors).
JGL
Martin Shackelford
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a2664b9b-96d1-42aa...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
the final session. Not of any interest to you, apparently. Not the kind of
witnesses you're looking for.
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cmtb24d35segjm0d9...@4ax.com...
Steve Thomas
wrote:
> Good Lord, Leyden--you still believe your own tripe.
Your comments are welcome Martin but how about addressing the "meat"
of the thread. Did Roswell Park retract the info sent to Barb? Do you
have any documentation to refute that Judyth was "dismissed?"
>
> Martin
>
> <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote in message
> JGL- Hide quoted text -
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Judyth did present a list of witnesses to her presentation of her paper at
>the final session. Not of any interest to you, apparently. Not the kind of
>witnesses you're looking for.
>
>Martin
Oh, to the contrary, Martin, I am very interested in any witnesses to
any final session where papers were presented. :-)
jfk...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Judyth did present a list of witnesses to her presentation of her paper at
> the final session. Not of any interest to you, apparently. Not the kind of
> witnesses you're looking for.
Only if they can dish up some gossip.
>
> Martin
>
> "Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:cmtb24d35segjm0d9...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On 10 May 2008 14:15:04 -0400, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com>
> > Barb :-)- Hide quoted text -
Steve Thomas
> On May 15, 3:14 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Judyth did present a list of witnesses to her presentation of her paper at
> > the final session. Not of any interest to you, apparently. Not the kind of
> > witnesses you're looking for.
>
> Only if they can dish up some gossip.
Can you or Martin name one witness?( I dont care if they dish up
gossip or not) Just one?
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Martin Shackelford
that wasn't their "official position," and that whoever Barb talked with
had apparently misremembered.
This was posted before.
Martin
"Steve Thomas" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:aa9f4deb-bde0-4c57...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eq9p24d55iavk9nqq...@4ax.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>I've seen no sign whatsoever of that, Barb.
You don't see a lot, Martin. You DO see, don't you, that a list of
witnesses to anything from Judyth is just a list until someone
contacts those people and verifies what Judyth says about them or what
she says they witnessed?
Sans verification from any person she mentions, it's just more
yabbajabba from Judyth.
Barb Junkkarinen
from Roswell Park, and said that Dr. Mirand, himself, (whom your
"there may have been a mistake" alumni person punted the whole thing
to) had told a couple of researchers so. It's also clear that the
alumni person did not know who had sent me the information in the
first place.
Though contacted by me (both Mirand and my original contact) when this
alumni "mistake" issue was raised, and asked to resolve any problem
with the information I had been given ASAP, Roswell Park has NOT
retracted the information I was given.
This is the info I was given ... not from someone going from memory:
"Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I looked into this matter
and discovered that she never finished the Program as she was
dismissed."
On 16 May 2008 10:17:58 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
Michael O'Dell
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1HcXj.982$qH4...@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Commenting on the claim that Judyth was dismissed, Roswell Park stated
> that wasn't their "official position," and that whoever Barb talked with
> had apparently misremembered.
> This was posted before.
>
> Martin
>
As I recall, they said someone may have been wrong. Not that someone was
wrong, or was apparently wrong. There's a difference and you are twisting
it the way you want it to go.
That's just the kind of thing Tony says he likes to attack, but for some
reason he's let this slide. Wonder why.
It was a non-denial and a non-confirmation. Someone was trying to stay
out of it once it turned into an argument.
Michael
jfk...@gmail.com
> "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Barb ran with incorrect information and she has been left swinging in
the wind.
Barb Junkkarinen
Pamela's needle seems to be stuck.
She keeps running with this silly comment, despite evidence to the
contrary being all over the place, including in Judyth's own statement
where she acknowledges Dr. Mirand telling researchers she had been
dismissed.
Here's my reply to much the same comment, just a few days ago...
QUOTE
I've not been left hanging on anything. RP has not retracted the
information that Judyth had not finished the program and had been
dismissed. Period.
Of course all of us are left hanging waiting for you and Martin to
post all the details you promised that would show the info I was given
was in error, gossip, a "rumour."
How'd that work out for you, Pamela? Any reason you are not even able
to acknowledge that Judyth herself issued a statement saying a couple
researchers had been told by Dr. Mirand that she had been dismissed
from the program?
Martin at least has enough sense not to make it worse.<g> I'm not
hanging ... nor am I the one swinging in the breeze.
END QUOTE
And hee's my reply to Steve from May 1oth when he asked if RP had
retracted the information that Judyth did not complete the program as
she had been dismissed from it:
QUOTE
Bests,
Barb :-)
END QUOTE
When Martin's premature (not to mention mischarachterization) of a
denial was posted, I immediately wrote my contact cc'ing Dr. Mirand
asking for resolution if there was a problem with the info I had been
given ASAP.
Will Pamela get it now?
I'll keep this reply handy just in case ...
Barb :-)
Michael O'Dell
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0505c36a-b674-4dee...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Barb reported what she had been told. I thought that's what you were
wanting her to do. Even if it turned out to be incorrect, it wouldn't
leave Barb "swinging", whatever that means. It was still what she was
told.
However, your claim that it was incorrect is unsupported. And Judyth has
apparently confirmed it herself.
Michael
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Steve Thomas" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c77844df-9efd-495e...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
jfk...@gmail.com
> <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0505c36a-b674-4dee...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On May 16, 8:40 pm, "Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1HcXj.982$qH4...@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> >> > Commenting on the claim that Judyth was dismissed, Roswell Park stated
> >> > that wasn't their "official position," and that whoever Barb talked
> >> > with
> >> > had apparently misremembered.
> >> > This was posted before.
>
> >> > Martin
>
> >> As I recall, they said someone may have been wrong. Not that someone was
> >> wrong, or was apparently wrong. There's a difference and you are
> >> twisting
> >> it the way you want it to go.
>
> >> That's just the kind of thing Tony says he likes to attack, but for some
> >> reason he's let this slide. Wonder why.
>
> >> It was a non-denial and a non-confirmation. Someone was trying to stay
> >> out of it once it turned into an argument.
>
> >> Michael
>
> > Barb ran with incorrect information and she has been left swinging in
> > the wind.
>
> Barb reported what she had been told.
Were that the case she would have presented the information she had,
including quotes and contact data so that others could verify her
statements and then backed off. Instead, her story becomes wilder with
each retelling. Each new embellishment takes us another step farther from
'the truth'. However, you seem blissfully unaware of that.
jfk...@gmail.com
wrote:
> I've seen no sign whatsoever of that, Barb.
>
> Martin
Of course not. Barb has yet to comprehend the significance of her
tracking down Judyth's paper on melanogenisis. That alone corroborates
the fact that the paper was not only presented once, but two or three
different times, the first being at RP. That being the case, the entire
concept of a 'dismissal' is ridiculous.
>
> "Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:eq9p24d55iavk9nqq...@4ax.com...
>
> > On 15 May 2008 16:14:20 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
> > <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>Judyth did present a list of witnesses to her presentation of her paper at
> >>the final session. Not of any interest to you, apparently. Not the kind of
> >>witnesses you're looking for.
>
> >>Martin
>
> > Oh, to the contrary, Martin, I am very interested in any witnesses to
> > any final session where papers were presented. :-)
>
> >>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>news:cmtb24d35segjm0d9...@4ax.com...
> >>> On 10 May 2008 14:15:04 -0400, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com>
Martin Shackelford
at Roswell Park, Pam. Not sure where you got that idea. It was written at
St. Francis College, based on work she did there.
Martin
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8e5959b7-265d-47bd...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
>On May 16, 9:18 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
>wrote:
>> I've seen no sign whatsoever of that, Barb.
>>
>> Martin
>
>Of course not. Barb has yet to comprehend the significance of her
>tracking down Judyth's paper on melanogenisis. That alone corroborates
>the fact that the paper was not only presented once, but two or three
>different times, the first being at RP. That being the case, the entire
>concept of a 'dismissal' is ridiculous.
How do you know the paper presented at RP was the same one presented
at the Indiana Academy of Science? Where is this paper, have you ever
seen it?
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>The melanogenesis paper wasn't the one she presented at the final session
>at Roswell Park, Pam.
What was the title/subject of the paper presented at Roswell Park?
Where is this paper, have you ever seen it?
>Not sure where you got that idea. It was written at
>St. Francis College, based on work she did there.
Why do you believe there was a paper, where is this paper ... have
you ever seen it? What could it say beyond what the abstract says?
Barb :-)
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:244434hq87fmq452r...@4ax.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
How do you know the paper presented at RP was not the same one
presented at the Indiana Academy of Science? Where is this paper, have
you ever seen it?
On 20 May 2008 01:58:21 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vfq4341de8puge2tk...@4ax.com...
jfk...@gmail.com
wrote:
> It wasn't the same paper.
But it was on the same topic -- melanogenisis.
> Martin
>
> "Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:244434hq87fmq452r...@4ax.com...
jfk...@gmail.com
wrote:
> The melanogenesis paper wasn't the one she presented at the final session
> at Roswell Park, Pam. Not sure where you got that idea. It was written at
> St. Francis College, based on work she did there.
The subject was the same -- melanogenesis -- and it is likely that the
thesis was the same. There was not much time between RP and the Oct
presentation of the paper for significant new research, was there? Judyth
didn't start classes until mid-September.
>
> Martin
>
> <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Barb Junkkarinen
>On May 19, 2:31 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
>wrote:
>> The melanogenesis paper wasn't the one she presented at the final session
>> at Roswell Park, Pam. Not sure where you got that idea. It was written at
>> St. Francis College, based on work she did there.
>
>The subject was the same -- melanogenesis -- and it is likely that the
>thesis was the same. There was not much time between RP and the Oct
>presentation of the paper for significant new research, was there? Judyth
>didn't start classes until mid-September.
Yes, that would seem to be a problem, wouldn't it? :-)
And when Martin mused where you got the idea that she presented the
melanogenesis paper at Roswell ... why didn't you tell him that you
got it from what Judyth said herself, in her book?
Barb Junkkarinen
>On May 20, 12:58 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
>wrote:
>> It wasn't the same paper.
>
>But it was on the same topic -- melanogenisis.
How do you know, why do you think, especially given your own comment
that there wasn't much time for any significant new research between
the time she got to St. Francis and when the presentation was made at
the IAS, that there were two separate papers?
Martin Shackelford
Martin
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f29eb02a-8d2d-4704...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
You are certainly jumping to a lot of conclusions lately.
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3lu63457msn7k04js...@4ax.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>You are assuming that there was only one "melanogenesis paper," Barb.
>You are certainly jumping to a lot of conclusions lately.
And you know there were two papers because? The only answer, of
course, since you have not seen any papers ...is because Judyth told
you so.
Judyth says "jump" and you don't even as "how high?" ... you just do
it.
Michael O'Dell
Do you have an actual factual comment to make? Was there more than one? Is
Barb wrong about something?
All these snippy little remarks with no content just keep the drama going.
Michael
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:is9Zj.181$SN3...@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
> You are assuming that there was only one "melanogenesis paper," Barb.
> You are certainly jumping to a lot of conclusions lately.
>
Martin Shackelford
Don't let reality get in your way.
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:da3b3497a1g1s4ise...@4ax.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
questions or even explain ... because the only info you have as
regards most things is what Judyth has said.
That is your reality. Face that.
Batrb :-)
On 23 May 2008 14:26:52 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
William Yates
> You state things as fact, Martin, but cannot (and will not) answer any
> questions or even explain ... because the only info you have as
> regards most things is what Judyth has said.
>
> That is your reality. Face that.
>
>
> Batrb :-)
But Batrb, he's got all that stuff he sent to Tony to put on his web site
to prove Judyth is telling the truth. Oh wait, that was all picked out and
provided by Judyth, nevermind.
And on a different subject, did either of the Rp students you talked to
say if they got a certificate or diploma showing that they finished the
program?
jfk...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Nice to see you haven't abandoned your mantra, Barb.
> Don't let reality get in your way.
Each retelling of her Judyth myth adds additional embellishment. I doubt
that reality is an issue.
>
> Martin
>
> "Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:da3b3497a1g1s4ise...@4ax.com...
>
> > On 22 May 2008 04:09:28 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
> > <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>You are assuming that there was only one "melanogenesis paper," Barb.
> >>You are certainly jumping to a lot of conclusions lately.
>
> > And you know there were two papers because? The only answer, of
> > course, since you have not seen any papers ...is because Judyth told
> > you so.
>
> > Judyth says "jump" and you don't even as "how high?" ... you just do
> > it.
>
> >>Martin
>
> >>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>news:3lu63457msn7k04js...@4ax.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
<william_...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>> You state things as fact, Martin, but cannot (and will not) answer any
>> questions or even explain ... because the only info you have as
>> regards most things is what Judyth has said.
>>
>> That is your reality. Face that.
>>
>>
>> Batrb :-)
>
>
>But Batrb, he's got all that stuff he sent to Tony to put on his web site
>to prove Judyth is telling the truth. Oh wait, that was all picked out and
>provided by Judyth, nevermind.
>
>And on a different subject, did either of the Rp students you talked to
>say if they got a certificate or diploma showing that they finished the
>program?
I'll be posting on the students I talked to sometime soon. They
corroborate one another on several things. Sorry, best I can do for
now ... not quite finshed. :-)
Barb :-)
Martin Shackelford
most things is what Judyth has said." At least you hedged it a bit with
qualifications this time, but it remains inaccurate. That's your reality.
I always sought any documentation available, checked things against other
sources (including Mary Ferrell's chronology), communicated with her son,
daughter, sister and best friend, as well as with the professor to whom
she showed the letters she had written to her son. I interviewed Anna
Lewis myself, and supported the videotaping of her account, as well as
that of Judyth herself. I encouraged others to investigate any aspects
they were in a position to learn more about-- Ed Haslam looked through the
local papers in Bradenton, Joe Riehl checked out matters in New Orleans,
others located Oswald's pay stubs, talked with additional witnesses, and
found more documents.
I've supported any open-minded research into her account--you haven't
shown any evidence of falling into that category, Barb.
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2u6e3490t8v2vq2dh...@4ax.com...
Martin Shackelford
provided by Judyth." I drew on a number of sources, and Judyth had no idea
I was doing it--you may recall that she had been out of contact for a
while at that point.
Martin
"William Yates" <william_...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:AY6dnbk8rLFtuarV...@earthlink.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>You again repeat the false mantra that "the only info you have as regards
>most things is what Judyth has said." At least you hedged it a bit with
>qualifications this time, but it remains inaccurate. That's your reality.
>
>I always sought any documentation available, checked things against other
>sources (including Mary Ferrell's chronology), communicated with her son,
>daughter, sister and best friend, as well as with the professor to whom
>she showed the letters she had written to her son. I interviewed Anna
>Lewis myself, and supported the videotaping of her account, as well as
>that of Judyth herself. I encouraged others to investigate any aspects
>they were in a position to learn more about-- Ed Haslam looked through the
>local papers in Bradenton, Joe Riehl checked out matters in New Orleans,
>others located Oswald's pay stubs, talked with additional witnesses, and
>found more documents.
And no one bothered to do the most basic fact checking. Dismal.
>
>I've supported any open-minded research into her account--you haven't
>shown any evidence of falling into that category, Barb.
Like many, I waited with interest for the book with all that evidence
and documentation you had told everyone would be in it for years. It
wasn't there.
And, like it or not, most of what you post as evidence, excuses and
explanations is based only on Judyth's sayso. Most recent case in
point ... there being two separate papers, which you said at first,
then yesterday or this morning, it became paper number 2 was a
continuation and follow up on paper number one.
But you cannot state for a fact that ANY actual paper ever existed. We
know there is an abstract. Beyond that, whether at RP or while at St.
Francis, you don't know anything ... except for what Judyth claims.
And even you, maybe especially you ... should know that that is just
not good enough. And unfortunately, no matter how many times you
repeat your telling of things, your assertions no longer carry the
credibility they once did. People have been burned too many times.
Barb :-)
Martin Shackelford
that perhaps no paper ever existed shows how far you've drifted from any
semblance of objectivity.
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ujbh349rm7jq9sjqu...@4ax.com...
Michael O'Dell
It has been repeatedly demonstrated that you do depend on what Judyth
tells you for many things. So why take such offense when people point it
out?
Much of Judyth's story depends on her say so. It is otherwise
undocumented. So her credibity is very much an issue.
Michael
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:HiuZj.159$jI5...@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
Michael O'Dell
> You again repeat the false mantra that "the only info you have as regards
> most things is what Judyth has said." At least you hedged it a bit with
> qualifications this time, but it remains inaccurate. That's your reality.
>
> I always sought any documentation available, checked things against other
> sources (including Mary Ferrell's chronology), communicated with her son,
> daughter, sister and best friend, as well as with the professor to whom
> she showed the letters she had written to her son. I interviewed Anna
> Lewis myself, and supported the videotaping of her account, as well as
> that of Judyth herself. I encouraged others to investigate any aspects
> they were in a position to learn more about-- Ed Haslam looked through the
> local papers in Bradenton, Joe Riehl checked out matters in New Orleans,
> others located Oswald's pay stubs, talked with additional witnesses, and
> found more documents.
>
> I've supported any open-minded research into her account--you haven't
> shown any evidence of falling into that category, Barb.
>
Martin,
I haven't seen any evidence that you've supported "any open-minded
research" into her account. You immediately slam anything that expresses
a doubt.
Michael
Michael O'Dell
How about some factual content instead?
Do you have evidence of the paper? Say what it is. Is it that there must
be a paper if there was an abstract? Say so.
All these contentless insults only get you paid back.
Michael
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Bfa_j.475$iM3...@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
You're speculating ... and wrong. I never said her abstract was "of
nothing."
You continue to state things as fact when it is crystal clear your
only source for the information is Judyth. Then you get your knickers
in a not when someone points that out.
You could save yourself the grief, and everyone else the time if you
just prefaced your "facts" for which you have no other source with,
"According to Judyth...."
Barb :-)
On 25 May 2008 12:41:55 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
paul seaton
>
> You're speculating ... and wrong. I never said her abstract was "of
> nothing."
>
> You continue to state things as fact when it is crystal clear your
> only source for the information is Judyth. Then you get your knickers
> in a not when someone points that out.
>
> You could save yourself the grief, and everyone else the time if you
> just prefaced your "facts" for which you have no other source with,
> "According to Judyth...."
I think it's possible Martin uses the turn of phrase "apparently..." to mean
just that. As in "Apparently the tape recorder in the purse bumped into
something & just happened to come on". :-)
I can't recall any cassette player I ever owned where it didn't need quite a
hefty shove on the 'RECORD' button to push those record/playback heads into
place. And this record button is always one of a long line of buttons ALL of
which would be pressed down ( about 1mm!) by any random contact with
furniture, elbows... the truth, etc etc.
IOW, this was some miraculous accidental-recording-event. The explanation
must involve Divine Intervention of a truly wonderful kind. I can see Judy
even now, trawling the web to find a brand of cassette recorder that will a)
fit in a purse & b) has a HUGE record button, VERY easy to accidentally
press down, situated in some highly unusual isolated position far from all
the other buttons.
Judy - May I suggest the Toshiba NR13AX-Z25 ????
Barb Junkkarinen
<paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:bidn34d6ejcmevhk1...@4ax.com...
>>
>> You're speculating ... and wrong. I never said her abstract was "of
>> nothing."
>>
>> You continue to state things as fact when it is crystal clear your
>> only source for the information is Judyth. Then you get your knickers
>> in a not when someone points that out.
>>
>> You could save yourself the grief, and everyone else the time if you
>> just prefaced your "facts" for which you have no other source with,
>> "According to Judyth...."
>
>I think it's possible Martin uses the turn of phrase "apparently..." to mean
>just that. As in "Apparently the tape recorder in the purse bumped into
>something & just happened to come on". :-)
Apparently. :-)
>
>I can't recall any cassette player I ever owned where it didn't need quite a
>hefty shove on the 'RECORD' button to push those record/playback heads into
>place. And this record button is always one of a long line of buttons ALL of
>which would be pressed down ( about 1mm!) by any random contact with
>furniture, elbows... the truth, etc etc.
>
>IOW, this was some miraculous accidental-recording-event. The explanation
>must involve Divine Intervention of a truly wonderful kind. I can see Judy
>even now, trawling the web to find a brand of cassette recorder that will a)
>fit in a purse & b) has a HUGE record button, VERY easy to accidentally
>press down, situated in some highly unusual isolated position far from all
>the other buttons.
Intervention by some divine providence would really have to have been
a factor for audio recorders I have owned ... I recall having to
simultaneously press both the play and record buttons at the same time
to initiate recording.
>
>Judy - May I suggest the Toshiba NR13AX-Z25 ????
<g>
Barb :-)
Martin Shackelford
You base a lot on them.
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bidn34d6ejcmevhk1...@4ax.com...
James K. Olmstead
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b2cb72e2-3175-42b6...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On May 15, 3:14 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> Judyth did present a list of witnesses to her presentation of her paper at
> the final session. Not of any interest to you, apparently. Not the kind of
> witnesses you're looking for.
Only if they can dish up some gossip.
Seems that somebody in that group would have made some written comment in
ref to this unique presentation....
jko
Steve Thomas
wrote:
>
>
>
> > You're speculating ... and wrong. I never said her abstract was "of
> > nothing."
>
> > You continue to state things as fact when it is crystal clear your
> > only source for the information is Judyth. Then you get your knickers
> > in a not when someone points that out.
>
> > You could save yourself the grief, and everyone else the time if you
> > just prefaced your "facts" for which you have no other source with,
> > "According to Judyth...."
>
> I think it's possible Martin uses the turn of phrase "apparently..." to mean
> just that. As in "Apparently the tape recorder in the purse bumped into
> something & just happened to come on". :-)
>
> I can't recall any cassette player I ever owned where it didn't need quite a
> hefty shove on the 'RECORD' button to push those record/playback heads into
> place. And this record button is always one of a long line of buttons
The ones i have experience with you need to press record and play at
exactly the same time. Hard to believe it was an "accident."
ALL of
> which would be pressed down ( about 1mm!) by any random contact with
> furniture, elbows... the truth, etc etc.
>
> IOW, this was some miraculous accidental-recording-event. The explanation
> must involve Divine Intervention of a truly wonderful kind. I can see Judy
> even now, trawling the web to find a brand of cassette recorder that will a)
> fit in a purse & b) has a HUGE record button, VERY easy to accidentally
> press down, situated in some highly unusual isolated position far from all
> the other buttons.
>
> Judy - May I suggest the Toshiba NR13AX-Z25 ????
>
>
>
>
>
> > Barb :-)
>
> > On 25 May 2008 12:41:55 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
> > <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>Your apparent new theory that the abstract was an abstract of nothing, and
> >>that perhaps no paper ever existed shows how far you've drifted from any
> >>semblance of objectivity.
>
> >>Martin
>
> >>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>news:ujbh349rm7jq9sjqu...@4ax.com...
> >>> On 24 May 2008 20:00:27 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
> >>>>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news:2u6e3490t8v2vq2dh...@4ax.com...
> >>>>> You state things as fact, Martin, but cannot (and will not) answer any
> >>>>> questions or even explain ... because the only info you have as
> >>>>> regards most things is what Judyth has said.
>
> >>>>> That is your reality. Face that.
>
> >>>>> Batrb :-)
>
> >>>>> On 23 May 2008 14:26:52 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
> >>>>> <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>Nice to see you haven't abandoned your mantra, Barb.
> >>>>>>Don't let reality get in your way.
>
> >>>>>>Martin
>
> >>>>>>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:da3b3497a1g1s4ise...@4ax.com...
> >>>>>>> On 22 May 2008 04:09:28 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
> >>>>>>> <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>You are assuming that there was only one "melanogenesis paper,"
> >>>>>>>>Barb.
> >>>>>>>>You are certainly jumping to a lot of conclusions lately.
>
> >>>>>>> And you know there were two papers because? The only answer, of
> >>>>>>> course, since you have not seen any papers ...is because Judyth told
> >>>>>>> you so.
>
> >>>>>>> Judyth says "jump" and you don't even as "how high?" ... you just do
> >>>>>>> it.
>
> >>>>>>>>Martin
>
> >>>>>>>>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>news:3lu63457msn7k04js...@4ax.com...
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Barb Junkkarinen
<jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
Ahhh, but James ... that presupposes that someone has contacted these
witnesses she named and asked them! What are the odds Martin has done
that?
Barb :-)
>
>jko
Steve Thomas
wrote:
> And you could save a lot of time if you labeled your assumptions, Barb.
> You base a lot on them.
And you could save a lot of time if you labled Judyth's say so as
such, and not call it evidence.
>
> Martin
>
> "Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:bidn34d6ejcmevhk1...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > You're speculating ... and wrong. I never said her abstract was "of
> > nothing."
>
> > You continue to state things as fact when it is crystal clear your
> > only source for the information is Judyth. Then you get your knickers
> > in a not when someone points that out.
>
> > You could save yourself the grief, and everyone else the time if you
> > just prefaced your "facts" for which you have no other source with,
> > "According to Judyth...."
>
> > Barb :-)
>
> > On 25 May 2008 12:41:55 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
> > <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>Your apparent new theory that the abstract was an abstract of nothing, and
> >>that perhaps no paper ever existed shows how far you've drifted from any
> >>semblance of objectivity.
>
> >>Martin
>
> >>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>news:ujbh349rm7jq9sjqu...@4ax.com...
> >>> On 24 May 2008 20:00:27 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
> >>>>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news:2u6e3490t8v2vq2dh...@4ax.com...
> >>>>> You state things as fact, Martin, but cannot (and will not) answer any
> >>>>> questions or even explain ... because the only info you have as
> >>>>> regards most things is what Judyth has said.
>
> >>>>> That is your reality. Face that.
>
> >>>>> Batrb :-)
>
> >>>>> On 23 May 2008 14:26:52 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
> >>>>> <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>Nice to see you haven't abandoned your mantra, Barb.
> >>>>>>Don't let reality get in your way.
>
> >>>>>>Martin
>
> >>>>>>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:da3b3497a1g1s4ise...@4ax.com...
> >>>>>>> On 22 May 2008 04:09:28 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
> >>>>>>> <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>You are assuming that there was only one "melanogenesis paper,"
> >>>>>>>>Barb.
> >>>>>>>>You are certainly jumping to a lot of conclusions lately.
>
> >>>>>>> And you know there were two papers because? The only answer, of
> >>>>>>> course, since you have not seen any papers ...is because Judyth told
> >>>>>>> you so.
>
> >>>>>>> Judyth says "jump" and you don't even as "how high?" ... you just do
> >>>>>>> it.
>
> >>>>>>>>Martin
>
> >>>>>>>>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>news:3lu63457msn7k04js...@4ax.com...
Anthony Marsh
> On May 17, 11:59 pm, "Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 16, 8:40 pm, "Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:1HcXj.982$qH4...@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>>> Commenting on the claim that Judyth was dismissed, Roswell Park stated
>>>>> that wasn't their "official position," and that whoever Barb talked
>>>>> with
>>>>> had apparently misremembered.
>>>>> This was posted before.
>>>>> Martin
>>>> As I recall, they said someone may have been wrong. Not that someone was
>>>> wrong, or was apparently wrong. There's a difference and you are
>>>> twisting
>>>> it the way you want it to go.
>>>> That's just the kind of thing Tony says he likes to attack, but for some
>>>> reason he's let this slide. Wonder why.
>>>> It was a non-denial and a non-confirmation. Someone was trying to stay
>>>> out of it once it turned into an argument.
>>>> Michael
>>> Barb ran with incorrect information and she has been left swinging in
>>> the wind.
>> Barb reported what she had been told.
>
> Were that the case she would have presented the information she had,
> including quotes and contact data so that others could verify her
> statements and then backed off. Instead, her story becomes wilder with
> each retelling. Each new embellishment takes us another step farther from
> 'the truth'. However, you seem blissfully unaware of that.
>
They don't believe in documents. They believe it only because Barb sayso.
> I thought that's what you were
>> wanting her to do. Even if it turned out to be incorrect, it wouldn't
>> leave Barb "swinging", whatever that means. It was still what she was
>> told.
>>
>> However, your claim that it was incorrect is unsupported. And Judyth has
>> apparently confirmed it herself.
>>
>> Michael
>
>
Steve Thomas
Neither do you. You believe anything people say without documents. Your
also a day late and dollar short on this thread dude, its months old.
They believe it only because Barb sayso.
>
>
>
> > I thought that's what you were
> >> wanting her to do. Even if it turned out to be incorrect, it wouldn't
> >> leave Barb "swinging", whatever that means. It was still what she was
> >> told.
>
> >> However, your claim that it was incorrect is unsupported. And Judyth has
> >> apparently confirmed it herself.
>
> >> Michael- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
More false charges. I cite more than documents.
And I do not believe whatever someone says.
Anthony Marsh
> <jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> On May 16, 8:40 pm, "Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:1HcXj.982$qH4...@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>
>>>> Commenting on the claim that Judyth was dismissed, Roswell Park stated
>>>> that wasn't their "official position," and that whoever Barb talked
>>>> with
>>>> had apparently misremembered.
>>>> This was posted before.
>>>> Martin
>>> As I recall, they said someone may have been wrong. Not that someone was
>>> wrong, or was apparently wrong. There's a difference and you are
>>> twisting
>>> it the way you want it to go.
>>>
>>> That's just the kind of thing Tony says he likes to attack, but for some
>>> reason he's let this slide. Wonder why.
>>>
>>> It was a non-denial and a non-confirmation. Someone was trying to stay
>>> out of it once it turned into an argument.
>>>
>>> Michael
>> Barb ran with incorrect information and she has been left swinging in
>> the wind.
>>
>
> leave Barb "swinging", whatever that means. It was still what she was
> told.
>
That's fun, but she then pretended it is proven fact.